Studies go back as far as 2006 revealing the dangers of heart damage to drug recipients when it was also determined success in prevention of recurring breast cancer is 0.6 women out of one hundred. Why did it take 12 years to report this finding and why is there no mention of an alternative by now? Oh, yea $$$$, that's why!
4
I had stage IIA triple positive. My chemo cocktail included Herceptin (total 4 doses). During the chemo I developed a persistent cough which gradually worsened as I continued through my radiation treatments. Ultimately I was diagnosed with pneumonitis, or lung inflammation, and the oncologist concluded it was most likely a reaction to the Herceptin. Two months of high-dose prednisone finally cleared up my lungs, but he decided against the additional 12-months of Herceptin for fear of causing a worse lung reaction, lung damage requiring oxygen the rest of my life, or possibly even death.
I'm almost three years out and so far, so good. I'm grateful for all the cancer drugs available to me and for government studies like this that continue to research and refine the drugs' uses when the pharmaceutical companies might not.
6
Watch the price of this drug rise when the 6 month use becomes popular.
6
I had stage 2 her2nu+ cancer and received nine doses of Herceptin - four in my chemo cocktail and 4.3 more doses before the third mugah scan detected heart failure. The ninth dose was removed from my chest after three minutes infused while somebody finally read my scan and ran in to dump the dose. Still cost me $8900. That was ten years ago.
And I would do it again just to be able
To write this. Nobody ever thanks Lily Tartikoff for getting the clinical trial off death row. Thanks to the British for saving my
Mother from the Nazis and now performing this valuable study.
4
That's pretty ballsy so good luck to you. I was Stage 2A triple positive and had Herceptin, Perjeta and Kadcyla for a year. Had a complete clinical response, did not have or need a mastectomy.
I wouldn't be here if not for the Herceptin. Nor would a lot of women.
Just sayin'.
2
I refused to take Herceptin for Stage 1a breast cancer. My oncologist said well it has a 2 b recommendation, I said aghast you want me to undergo chemotherapy for 2b level of rec. She said how do you know what that means?
I went to Hopkins for a second opinion and was told not necessary. Be careful be wise. Look at all your options.
6
I had Stage 2, mestatesize to one lymph node. Had chemo over 4 months then Herceptin for 1 year. Actually 10 months as I began to exhibit some heart problems like increased heart rate to the point where I literally felt my heart was coming out my mouth and shortness of breath. I did not do radiation because I fell within that gray zone and where the tumor was located was too close to the heart for me to feel comfortable adding another risk to my heart.
Keep in mind that one of the chemo drugs - Adriamicin (the red devil) is also toxic to the heart so your heart is getting a double whammy with the Herceptin. For me adding radiation would have been a triple whammy. I would say to others be your own advocate. Speak up when something just doesn't feel right. I also had an allergic reaction to another chemo drug - Taxol but the nurse at the time thought I was simply not answering her - no I was having problems breathing. Luckily the doctor came by took one look at my face and chest which were bright red and stopped the drip. This report appears to be good news. Hopefully less is better.
12
Great news for the pharma industry. Now watch the price of the 6 month treatment double.
14
If this finding is confirmed, it is great news for lots of people. It’s a great example of why US Government-supported research studies are important AND why we need protection from pharmaceutical companies being able to simply double the price of the drugs when a lower dose is effective.
13
I am no mathematician, no statistician. The story talks about percentages and odds, essentially. For those with any cancer, most people seek firm assurances, not percentages and odds. That is something that doctors and researchers must better convey to patients. It is something that we as patients must learn to understand and accept.
1
Most clinical guidelines are based on statistical data (percentages, odds, and their statistical significance). You can never have 100% certainty that something recommended will work for the individual patient because everyone is different. However, statistics is the best we can do to promote evidence-based research. Your comment shows a general problem people have with understanding medical research and its implications for the individual.
9
Most everyone knows statistics, batting averages, horse races etc. most people also know there are no guarantees. We are always going with the odds. Almost impossible to talk about individuals but we have a lot of numbers about groups.
Oncologists always start out with a high dose trying to be sure. Sometimes it later turns less will be enough. This has nothing to do with drug companies or price.
2
Your intuition is correct. Treatment should be, and generally is, based on clinical signs and/or biomarkers of efficacy, trying to balance side effects, prognosis, quality of life, etc. No treatment should be based on averages and typically they are not. The averages help draft guidelines and the physician can deviate from guidelines.
3